The original edict is going to be tested on 7 February by the I Will Not Comply folks. It seems certain that someone will, at the least, be arrested this time. My intention, if I can raise the ticket and the expenses, is to go out, participate in this action and give them the chance at me. The fight in Washington state is more important than almost everybody understands and has national, even international, implications.

If things go really south, Bob Wright has offered to truck my bones around the country, Irish-like, to raise money for the cause. I have accepted, since at that point I will no longer have need of them. ;-)

I am not suicidal, but the willingness to trade life for liberty -- your own and those that you love -- is implicit in the oath we take. The collectivist media has been very successful in serving their masters by deliberately ignoring the armed civil disobedience movement. Even the pukes at CSGV have been holding their tongues, even though the various state campaigns "prove" their "government-needs-a-monopoly-of-force" position. The "authorities" in Olympia are frightened to death, it would seem, about citizens exercising their rights while in the vicinity of their Mandarin personages. To paraphrase the Romans, "In timor veritas" -- in fear there is truth. The politicos have demonstrated their fear and an essential truth. The trick will be to give them the opportunity to overreact and demonstrate the bankruptcy of their tyranny where all will see and notice. THAT is a cause worth risking much for.

For some reason this reminds me of the time back in 90s when we got word that the ATF was planning a dynamic raid on some very nasty local Kluxers. Now we didn't like or agree with them (to put it mildly), nor did they appreciate us, but as near as we could determine they didn't deserve extra-judicial execution at the hands of Waco Jim Cavanaugh's ninja cowboys. (Waco Jim ran the Birmingham office of ATF at the time, a job he got in reward for his perjury at the Waco hearings.)

Still, we were talking about what to do and none of us was particularly enthusiastic about coming to the defense of the Klan. Finally, one of the fellows in the back of the room held up his hand and said, "I know what we can do." He paused for dramatic effect. "Let's just show up five minutes late and avenge their deaths."

The room broke up, as did I.

NOTE: The previously posted comment by COL Robert "Mad Bob" REDACTED on this subject has been redacted as a joke in poor taste. I am on record as insisting that the persons of the current and former presidents of the United States should be protected, at least until after any future war crimes trials may decide differently. ;-)

The poll, jointly commissioned by Washington CeaseFire and the San Francisco-based Smart Tech Challenges Foundation, found that 40 percent of interviewed gun owners said they would consider exchanging their conventional guns for smart guns. Heck, even Second Amendment Foundation’s Gottlieb says he theoretically likes the idea. “If someone could come up with a smart gun that was reliable and workable, I would buy it tomorrow.”

If this all sounds like politicians making promises in order to get elected and then reverting collectivist after being elected, it’s because that’s exactly what happened. And as to the propaganda that this all has to do with those “obnoxious” open carriers, Sebastian fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal … So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?

Right. They’re all a-skeered of the open carriers, enough to install “panic buttons.” It sounds to me like they aren’t a-skeerd enough. The legislators are supposed to be in our employ, and maybe what they need to see is more voters carrying guns.

Longtime readers may recall that Sebastian and I go way back, to July, 2008, when he denounced me as a "lunatic." My sin? Why I wrote this letter to the editor of the collectivist rag, the Madison (WI) Capitol Times:

Dear Editor:

Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a "safer society." More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.

Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We're done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for.

While American movie-goers are making “American Sniper” a box office record-breaker, critics are sniping back, taking all manner of shots at the film, and one might wonder whether some of this distaste is perhaps due to a subconscious reaction to the central core of the film: the story of a man who was remarkably proficient with a rifle.

How long before anti-gunners start pushing to regulate “sniper rifles,” which might be that bolt-action deer hunting rifle in the gun cabinet, the one with the black or camouflage composite synthetic stock and a scope sight? Such rifles fire cartridges that are far more powerful, and certainly more lethal to big game animals, at greater distances than the so-called “high power assault rifles” panned at every opportunity by the mainstream press.

Personally, I can think of no more wonderful outcome than if the movie prompts the firearm prohibitionists to go after deer rifles. They mess with Elmer Fudd at their peril and frankly the Fudds could stand being reminded that we are all guests at this disarmament party.

I finally saw the movie the other day and my reactions were much as I had expected. There have been a lot of explanations about why this is a Rorschach test of the two different worldviews currently vying for dominance in this country, but I think I have a much simpler reason why collectivists like Michael Moore condemn the movie, often without seeing it.

The reason is hardly intellectual nor is it academic -- they feel the crosshairs on their own necks. They understand that sooner or later this appetite of theirs for other people's liberty and property and lives is going to come down to a test of firepower and marksmanship. They prefer to believe (without much evidence) that as long as Obama is in the White House that the firepower is on their side. But what they understand subconsciously is that firepower and numbers can be negated by properly targeted, accurate marksmanship. This is why Diane Feinstein is always going on about .50 caliber rifles being able to shoot through limousines and aircraft -- because that is where SHE lives.

Oh yes, the explanation is simple and visceral -- the notion of a young deer hunter becoming a skilled killing machine targeted at THEM, well, that is something that they fear above all things. No wonder they loathe American Sniper. In fact, I think I'll go see it again just to say I did. ;-)

“This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” he said. “Believe me, the Army here wants to do the right thing … And the White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Does Shea’s HB 1245 create false hopes for Washington rights activists? Possibly, considering the odds against getting the majority of lawmakers to go along, after which Gov. Jay Inslee would likely veto any repeal.

In what is becoming a heated battle in Texas, Arlington police arrested two men Saturday for standing across a four-lane highway recording officers making a traffic stop, including one man who was openly carrying a handgun on his waist, refusing to abide by their orders to put it back into his car.

However, under Texas law, Kenny Lovett, was completely within his legal rights to open carry a pistol considering it was a pre-1899 black powder pistol, an antique that is not even considered a firearm under federal regulations.

And we all know, they had the right to record from across the busy thoroughfare, but that didn’t stop police from arresting Joseph Tye as well, who was not even carrying a gun, but merely a camera.

The above link was sent to me with the comment: "Time travel must be impossible. Otherwise, Woodrow Wilson, along with many others I could name, would surely have been strangled as an infant in his cradle."

Note from MBV: Folks, this is the most important ATF scandal story since Fast and Furious. Please distribute it to all your email lists, post it on "gun rights blogs" and forward it to your congresscritters with the demand that they look into this. David has been working on this story behind the scenes for almost two weeks, waiting for the documents to be released. Spread it around. It will be another blow against the empire.

Commenting on revelations about Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Department of Justice (DOJ) actions in the case of retired agent Jay Dobyns against his former employer, attorney David Hardy equated them with “a BATF and DOJ Watergate... or worse,” Friday. Noting that actions taken over a civil lawsuit evidently have included concealing evidence, secret threats against witnesses, and surveillance of attorneys and witnesses, the new information lends further credence to Dobyns’ allegations and appears to show government lawyers engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

“Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” Maj. Gen. James Post said recently during a speech at the Air Force’s Weapons and Tactics Conference, according to a post by former airman Tony Carr on the blog John Q. Public.

Heck, if the Air Force doesn't want them, give them to the Peshmerga. Along with Stingers, Javelins and M1A2 tanks. They'll figure out what to do with them in an independent Kurdistan. Screw the ghost of Woodrow Wilson.

This post on the ATF snitch John Brown is, as usual, being ignored by the "mainstream" so-called "gun rights commentariate." I need you folks to help spread the link to ARFcom and any other gun rights blogs or sites you can think of. The only way Brown (and his masters at Main Justice) will be defeated is if the word gets out. Help, please.

"SOF endorses the following current BOD members for reelection: Scott Bach, Ronnie Barrett, David Coy, Joseph DeBergalis, Antonio Hernandez, David Keene, Wayne Anthony Ross, Don Saba, William Satterfield, Ronald Schmeits, Robert Unkovic and Robert Viden.SOF is also endorsing Sean Mahoney and Timothy Knight, who are running by petition. "

There are many questions raised by the John Brown candidacy, not the least of which is WHO on the current board backed him enough to get his name on the ballot? What is Wayne LaPierre's role in this? Chris Cox's? The more important question is why is a militarized federal police agency -- entrusted with enforcing our firearm laws -- trying to penetrate the highest levels of a group as powerful as the NRA? The answer to that is obvious.

You would think that, having been outed, Brown and the ATF (and Main Justice for that matter as they are involved in this attempted COINTELPRO) would lay low for a while. But no, their appetites betray them. They OWN John Brown. That is indisputable. The Obama administration wants him in a position of some influence within the NRA. They have their own reasons for risking the public failure of their ploy. Whatever it is, they deem it worth the risk. One wonders how many other moves of seduction and corruption they have made behind the scenes to co-opt other advocacy groups? Funny, but given his latest moves, why does Alan Gottlieb immediately spring to mind?

(NOTE: Of course, John Brown and Alan Gottlieb may sue me for both slander and libel. They certainly have the resources. I would relish such a move, knowing that the discovery phases would each be delicious in their own way.)

After reading your blog for years and hearing you speak. It is impossible to take your warnings seriously as your only goal seems to be getting your face into the public eye. If anyone actually moved to violently oppose this treason you would be the first to betray and denounce them. You are what they called in the camps a COPPO. I have come to believe that in many ways you are more dangerous to Liberty than Bloomberg, as he at least is truthful in his loyalty to tyranny. You on the other hand , have consistently worked to support and defend the state for as long as I can discover your history. You have done more over the last 40+ years to undermine the freedom and liberty of the American people, the militia and the III% than any man since B. Arnold. Soon you will die, and may G_D have mercy on you, as history will not.

Well, I suppose that depends upon who writes the history. And by the way, my brave historical illiterate, the word is "kapo" not "coppo." It is useful to be able to correctly spell things when you're trying to get someone to take you seriously. My suggestion to you is that if reading my blog is such a waste, then don't do it. You'll feel better about yourself, perhaps enough so that one day you'll be able to use your real name without embarrassment. As for God's judgment, I will accept it without complaint.

"The governor's advisers say it's not their job to worry about the Constitution."

. . . The commission's chairman, Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, is undaunted by such details. "We're not writing proposed legislation," Jackson told Reuters. "We're writing end results." This is the sort of magical thinking that makes it hard to take gun controllers seriously.

No, to not take them seriously would be a very great mistake. They ARE serious. And they expect that someone else will pay the butcher's bill when their proposals get turned into bloody state repression. The thing is, if the "authorities" are too frightened to enforce the unconstitutional laws they already passed, what makes these collectivist mokes think that more draconian measures will be enforced?

For people like me, who have sympathized with Dobyns but tried to reserve judgment about his case, the documents push us further into the retired agent’s camp. You can’t read the few filings that have been unsealed in the case without wondering why the Justice Department is going to such extremes and spending so much on what is, at base, a relatively minor contractual dispute that could have ended years ago. . .

It still boggles the mind why the DOJ has fought Dobyns so hard for so long and at such great cost, even after a loss at trial that was so narrow it could almost be called a win.

Democrat sources say that Rep. Moeller is being disciplined for his role in the current controversy over open carry of guns in the House gallery. Moeller’s online comments stating that he would not allow open carry of a firearms sparked outrage from gun rights groups across the state. This led to a large protest of armed civilians showing up at the capitol to press for their gun rights. A small group of whom entered the house gallery, then as some say, they were provocatively displaying their firearms. Could it be that Democratic leadership is actually holding Rep. Moeller to account for his part of setting off these tense encounters?

Well, one thing that was brought to my attention up is an earlier post of Moeller's on Facebook on the same subject:

And here's some context to go with it. The "Take-the-House" move on the part of the 594 resisters did not happen in a vacuum. It was in response to Moeller's taunting. From an article in September of last year:

Earlier this summer, Rep. Jim Moeller took to Facebook and issued what some gun-rights advocates perceived as a challenge.

"I will refuse to conduct the business of the state as long as any 'open carry' nuts (are) in the gallery," Moeller, D-Vancouver, wrote on his Elect Jim Moeller Facebook page.

As speaker pro tempore of the state House of Representatives, Moeller often presides when the House is session.

Frank Decker, who is not one of Moeller's constituents but a Vancouver resident and a gun-rights advocate, saw the post.

"My immediate reaction was, challenge accepted," Decker said.

Decker created his own Facebook page titled "Moeller's Open Carry Challenge." The page has more than 80 "likes," and the goal, Decker said, is to have a volunteer openly carry a firearm in the gallery of the House every day during the 2015 legislative session, which kicks off in January.

"The best case scenario is that Jim would come to his senses and realize he's not being intimidated by us being there; he's not being threatened," Decker said.

Moeller, said it's the equivalent of having someone shouting at him from the gallery.

"It's ridiculous it's allowed," Moeller said. "It's not allowed in courthouses, it's not allowed in jails or bars or schools, and I think it's ridiculous it's allowed in the gallery."

Moeller said he doesn't take issue with lawmakers who carry a concealed weapon on the floor or firearms being allowed in the statehouse, but having someone open-carry firearms in the public gallery, which is elevated, he said, is an act of intimidation.

So when Bob Owens wrote insultingly of the anti-594 resisters in this screed -- saying "A small group of long gun open carriers lacking the discernment, basic common sense, and the political savvy of your average garden snail made complete fools out of themselves as they dangerously brandished firearms in the Washington House gallery last week during I-594 protests. Now legislators in both parties have agreed to ban long guns completely from both state houses as a result of these immature antics." -- he didn't know or care to find out that Moeller had already picked this fight LAST YEAR. It was Moeller who invited the controversy, not the I Will Not Comply folks. Owens, to put it bluntly, apparently didn't know shit from shinola about the context of the action.

Gottlieb, on the other hand, knew intimately about it. However he did not share that knowledge with his larger audience when he denounced the resisters as "extremists." To place their actions in context would be to explain them, rather than demonize them. Owens has the excuse of ignorance. Gottlieb does not.

But there are so many mysteries about what that man is up to! Why would a gun-rights advocate — any gun-rights advocate, anywhere — want background checks? Why would he want the federal control, the de facto gun registration, and the risk of confiscation that inevitably follow? How could he be so clueless about rights? So clueless about the threat to gun ownership? So clueless about how gun owners think? And beyond that … how could a man who wants background checks continue to present himself — and be widely accepted! — as a gun-rights leader?

. . . If Gottlieb had a clue about the rights of gun owners or the mindset of gun-rights activists, he would step out of the spotlight (and not just via the pretense that one of his puppets is really in charge). Being completely discredited on anything to do with background checks, he would recognize that he has no ability to lead (even from behind) on this issue. He would let somebody more principled unite the state’s gun owners. Instead, there he is, dividing — once again — so that our enemies can conquer.

Gottlieb and Workman, cheek to cheek and playing kissy, kissy with collectivist propaganda outlets.

Well, it looks like, a. Dr. Gottlieb and his trusty lab assistant Igor Workman are determined to prove every one of my criticisms; and, b., that they are so desperate for positive publicity that they have no problem unselfconsciously trumpeting the praises of a collectivist rag like the Vancouver Columbian -- "Earth shaking: Newspaper editorial lauds gun rights leader." Mind you, this is a paper that ENDORSED I-594!

"The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public." -- SPLC on "Hate and Extremism."

Extremist, noun: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Synonyms: fanatic, radical, zealot, fundamentalist, hard-liner, militant.

Gottlieb, as I have said before, is a smart guy. He knows what words mean, and, more importantly, how value-loaded a word like "extremist" is in the present environment. "Radical extremists" is what the Obama administration calls people like Islamic State and Boko Haram (always omitting "Muslim" for that would not be politically correct) -- you know, the people who cut other peoples' heads off just for fun and Allah.

An anti-594 activist emailed me saying, "The propaganda war rages. It worries me that Gottlieb is so freely using the extremist term. It has psychological implications in our society that could put us in a seriously bad position."

Indeed, such fears are not unfounded. By using the pejorative extremist, Gottlieb is consciously trying to marginalize and demonize them and he is speaking in a language that the militarized police of the SPLC-influenced fusion centers understand perfectly.

In the same post, I pointed out how Gottlieb's Igor-in-a-cowboy-hat, Dave Workman, was very successfully doing his best to whip up folks on the Northwest Forearms forum, to attack me as someone who was predisposed to violence and who would kill judges, telling one approvingly that he had "broken the code."

Dave Workman, Alan Gottlieb's Igor-in-a-cowboy-hat.

In my speech in December (text here) and this post the other day, "A little free advice for Alan Gottlieb: 'People who live in grass houses shouldn't throw lawnmowers,'" I tried to get across the point to Gottlieb that it would be far better to reach across the divide and at least coordinate anti-594 efforts with the I Will Not Comply folks. With these latest amped-up rhetorical attacks which do nothing less than greenlight the repression by the state of I-594 resisters, Gottlieb is declaring all out war on them. He is raising the chances of misadventure by mistake which could have deadly consequences. In this he is doing nothing less than establishing a de facto alliance with Michael Bloomberg and the citizen disarmament crowd. And what motivates him to do so?

I rather expect that it was this post at the Patrick Henry Society "The Myth of WA Gun Rights Groups: Adina Hicks and Alan Gottlieb," on 17 January. What Gottlieb is fighting for, first and foremost, is his own rice bowl -- that is, to preserve the money flow from his donor base -- and when, responding to Gottlieb's earlier attacks the I Will Not Comply folks decided to look into the strange case of Adina Hicks, Gottlieb was enraged. How dare they threaten his money stream?

So now we have Gottlieb and Bloomberg agreeing on a mutual enemy. The Bloomberg crowd is trying to deal with it by ignoring the armed civil disobedience to I-594. Gottlieb, on the other hand, is going after them directly, dishonestly, even savagely. Why would Bloomberg's minions need to attack the "extremists" who have continued to defeat by nullification the unconstitutional abomination that is I-594? They have Gottlieb, the "official opposition," to do that for them. And if the resisters get slandered as "violent extremists" and conveniently killed by the cops so much the better for both sides, Bloomberg and Gottlieb. Bloomberg gets his unconstitutional infringement and Gottlieb preserves the illusion upon which his money stream depends. A de facto alliance indeed.

Bob Owens outdoes himself in the pejorative department, calling people he doesn't know who participated in an action he wasn't at and therefore doesn't know the details about: "drooling simpletons" who do "incalculable damage to the image of gun owners"; "knuckle-draggers" who "don’t understand the long-game, and can’t grasp that the average citizen thinks that a person carrying a long gun to a protest of any sort is most likely unhinged"; and "cretins" who need to be controlled by right-thinking people -- you know, like Bob Owens. Yup, overwrought alright.

With the exception of five readers located in Georgetown PA, Fountain & Pine CO, Woodlands & Lubbock TX, everyone should have their hats no later than tomorrow. If you do not, then please drop me an email. The exceptions were for those whose shipping addresses somehow got separated from their orders, but they are all in the boxes now and ready to ship when I get the scratch to do so. I apologize again for the various delays, most of which I can ascribe to never having done business with the embroiderer before and thus making plans (and worse, announcements) based on promises not kept.

A number of you have asked for an explanation of why, once I had hats in hand, it still took a few days to get them in the mail. You see, I procured the hats on a volume deal, but had to pay for them all up front. Then I had to arrange for the embroidery (half up front and half upon delivery). What that meant was that I had a lot of up-front costs that had to be paid out, which I did, but it beggared me. Then, once I had them in hand, I had to pay for the shipping. Of course, y'all had sent in your money by various routes so I had that to work with, but it was barely sufficient to accomplish the task. And of course there was no way of knowing how many I would need, so I guessed, allowing for enough to take me through the first quarter of the year. In the end, now I have about 200 hats left of both types (Fight Tyranny & 100 Heads) and both colors (black and dark brown) so I figure that that ought to do it. The problem is that after the up-front expenses and shipping I am only now "cracking the nut." The sales of the hats from here on out will be what I use to operate the various campaigns on.

However, at the moment, for those aforementioned folks in PA, CO and TX, I'm still short the money to ship them and will do so no later than next Wednesday when I get my pennies from the empire. (Or, if I get one more order in the PO Box, I can ship them with the money enclosed in it.) This is all very boring and mundane, albeit frustrating, stuff, but you asked for an explanation and that is it.

I haven't yet seen this movie. Budgets being what they are, I'll have to wait for one of my daughters to "treat me," as they often do. Some readers who have posted comments elsewhere on this blog about all veterans being "mercenary murderers in service to the empire" will have noticed that such comments most often don't make it past my delete key. (The same goes for those who declare that all cops are evil.) Considering that my own son did three tours of Iraq beginning with the 101st ABN DIV during the invasion and one of Afghanistan this is understandable, I would think, and not for petty personal reasons. It is largely because I know what they do not, having lived through those years with a son in harm's way and experiencing our own learning curve of feckless government policies. I know too much. The human tragedy of it fills me, sometimes, when I think of what my son and his buddies had to endure -- what they gave so willingly -- with so little result. And as a result I curse the evil bastards who provoke the unnecessary wars with their pride and their craving for other people's property and liberty. Any honest war movie is perforce an anti-war movie because war is so horrible, so tragic, so wasteful. The thing is, Capt. John Parker could have, and likely would have, been described by these same doctrinaires as a "mercenary murderer in service to the empire" for his participation in the French and Indian War. There are, however, some things worse than war, as Capt. Parker knew, as we should all know, and sometimes wars are forced upon us. Should that happen in this country, within this country, and amongst us, in our streets and in our homes, I know that some of those same doctrinaires will be bloody well glad that we have a more than few "mercenary murderers in service to the empire" on our side when push comes to shove. There is no such thing as a free lunch and no free passport to some lands. Our sons and daughters who have fought in these wars know that intimately. They paid in hard coin -- the hardest of coin -- for that knowledge. I suspect that when I do see this movie, that will be the truth that hits home most keenly.

To which one Brent44 posits this, in reaction to my statement: "How is it, exactly, that you can 'fix alleged problems' of 594? It is an unconstitutional infringement. AGAIN, YOU DON'T COMPROMISE ON ESSENTIAL LIBERTY -- YOU DEFEAT THOSE WHO TRY TO TAKE IT. Tell that to Gottlieb, Mr. Workman. There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"

What does this mean in practical terms? Applying these statements literally with the most straightforward interpretation possible, I come up with:

Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue rulings to in the case of NORTHWEST SCHOOL OF SAFETY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. BOB FERGUSON, et al., Defendant(s).

In particular, Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue an injunction barring enforcement of I-594 as sought by the plaintiffs. Alan Gottlieb is one of the plaintiffs in this case.

Mike Vanderboegh considers any potential rulings by Judge Ben Settle barring enforcement of portions of I-594 to be a "deal".

Mike Vanderboegh is willing to use "armed civil disobedience" to stop rulings from being issued.

The next logical set of conclusions I draw is that:

Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the Judge.

Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the plaintiffs, and or defendants.

Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use violence to storm the courtroom in order to halt rulings from being issued.

I participated at the I-594 "I will not comply rally" and even signed the document which I swore to not comply with the initiative.

I used to admire Mike Vanderbough -- but not anymore. As far as I can tell, Mike Vanderbough is completely unhinged, off his rocker, and may even have some anger management issues.

To which Workman replies approvingly: "Brent, you may have cracked a code."

What morons. This moke doesn't understand a. The Three Percent Catechism and b. the concept of armed civil disobedience. By refusing to obey an unconstitutional law we force the "authorities" to either deal with it -- meaning THEY attack US while we are exercising our God-given inalienable rights -- or to choose to refuse to enforce their diktat, hence nullifying it. The choice of violence is theirs, not ours. What part of "No Fort Sumters" don't you understand, Brent?

To leap from that -- from what I said and who I am -- to a conclusion that I would murder judges is complete and utter bullshit. Of course Workman understands that. He's just inciting the Fudds on behalf of his master Gottlieb. It seems I may have gotten under their collective skin. Workman used to pretend some independence of thought from Gottlieb. Now all he can do is slobber, Igor-like, "Yes, master! Yes, master!"

Another reader replied to Brent: "You may want to look up the definition of 'armed civil disobedience'. You always remain civil yet protest/refuse to comply with whatever it is your protesting while retaining your arms. Exercising your right to bear arms while addressing your grievances with that government... It's astounding how many anti-gun people there are on here, pretending to support the 2nd."

Indeed. Thereby proving David Codrea's concept of the "Molon Labians."

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms — and who is heading to the SHOT Show — issued a statement that is being picked up by the media, starting with Guns.com. While his remark infuriate some people — he is currently the target of blogger Mike Vanderboegh, who operates a site called “Sipsey Street Irregulars,” Gottlieb is also getting considerable support from gun owners who are not happy about the bans, and what precipated them.

"This is the result of a few stupid extremists on our side who not only handled their firearms unsafely, but made the hundreds of Second Amendment supporters at the rally look foolish,” Gottlieb said in an e-mail that also came to Examiner. “Irresponsible actions get us bad results. Unfortunately, some of the fools in town are on our side. This kind of childish theater hurts our cause. The gun ban crowd is having a field day over this.”

Well, it's nice to know I got the "Igor" relationship right. Note that Workman no longer refers to me as one of the guys who broke the Fast and Furious story as he has in the past. That's already gone down the memory hole as far as he's concerned. And tell me, Alan, just exactly how do you define "our cause" -- you know, the cause that you claim is being "hurt?" Hey pal, I've got news for you, YOU ALREADY FRIGGING LOST THE FIGHT AGAINST 594 AND YOU WANT TO COMPROMISE SOME MORE? That may be your cause, but it sure as hell isn't the cause of liberty.

I had sighed in resignation as two years passed after the Newtown murders, and as other mass shootings followed, and nothing happened. But watching a show as theoretically serious as “Frontline” blow past gun-industry corporate financing of the NRA was more than I could bear.

At different times, including after the butchery of children in Newtown, President Barack Obama has showed himself disposed to take on the gun lobby. I note his feistiness now, in the last two years of his presidency, by changing U.S. Cuba policy, by taking action on immigration and, as he grays, showing a human side in his objectives that was sometimes missing in earlier policy calculations. The lack of reasonable limits on gun sales, ownership and use is one of the true stains on America as a civilized nation, very much worthy of his attention.

Why can’t Mr. Obama now take on guns? He could take a stand and do what he can as president. Even if the NRA continues to block meaningful legislation, he could make an important point on a key American issue.

I hope the Secret Service hasn’t deteriorated so far that he is afraid for his life if he takes on the NRA. Then there was Martin Luther King Jr.

So, Simpson is saying that NRA would assassinate Obama if he "tried to something serious" about guns? THOSE pantywaists? What a hoot.

You know, it seems impossible, but today is the 36th birthday of my beloved son, Matthew Bradley Vanderboegh. I named him for Matthew Ridgway and Omar Bradley. I suppose it was inevitable that he would become a soldier. Anyway, happy birthday, Matt. Hug that family of yours for me.

You are by now doubtless wondering how you got yourself in this descending cycle of self-discredit over I-594. Having observed you up close and from afar for more than a decade now I know you to be an intelligent, if somewhat arrogant, man. So I offer this advice to you in the hope that your brain might yet -- possibly -- overrule your bruised ego. I begin by reminding you of something I said in my speech last month on the grounds of your state capitol. You will find the text here. Forgive me for repeating myself, but you evidently did not pay any attention to my words the first time so they bear repeating:

But we did not have to be here, at this place, with our backs to the wall, our firearms on our shoulders – forced into these awful choices. We are here because of failures -- failures of our own and failures of those entrusted to wage the political fight to secure our liberties from just the sort of threat that I-594 represented. If we are going to tell the truth to the domestic enemies of the Constitution, let us tell the truth to ourselves and to our allies in this fight.

For years gun rights groups have fought on the same battlefields using the same tactics and consistently, incrementally, sometimes almost invisibly, we've LOST. We've lost because we let the enemies of liberty define the battlefield. Yet having been pushed back, again and again, the people that we entrusted to defend our liberties politically are now insisting that WE ALL DO THE SAME THING AGAIN AND AGAIN because. . . well, because that is what they do. And if you don’t like it, if you don't like the fact that they are losing your rights for you, you simply need to send them more money SO THAT THEY CAN LOSE SOME MORE.

So let us be honest. Petty jealousies, touchy egos and cynical jockeying for position lost the political fight against I-594. The NRA did the minimum required to convince their members that they were doing something without really doing something because they did not want to ally themselves with Alan Gottlieb. For his part, Alan Gottlieb seemed happy to have the NRA cede the battlefield to him for he would claim the credit for the victory. ONLY ONE THING HAPPENED, THEY DIDN’T WIN. They lost. WE lost. And now we are here because grown men and women acted like jealous children. But it is time to cease acting like children. Because of our own failures it is time to stand up and act like adults. This is not a game with no consequences, and merely played for points. This is deadly serious. This is as serious as it gets. And as my friend David Codrea says, it is a time for any chair in a bar fight – regardless of who gets the credit afterwards.

And this means working with the very people whose mistakes are responsible for I-594’s win. The fact that we are here today, armed, pointing out that I-594 is trumped -- is NEGATED -- by the Law of Unintended Consequences, does not mean that the political fight is over. Folks, it's just getting started. We NEED the NRAs and the Gottliebs of this state to put away their petty jealousies and to fight – really fight – not to make deals that compromise essential liberty. We need them to work together.

We do need you, Alan, to defeat I-594. I am sorry that you didn't recognize those words of mine for the call to unity that it was. I'm sorry that your ego wouldn't allow for the introspective analysis necessary to change your behavior. You did everything you could to sabotage and denigrate the folks that put on the 13 December rally. This was much more evident behind the scenes than in front, for that is your style.

Still, I had hopes that you would recognize after the turnout of 2,000 folks, who risked everything in a show of armed civil disobedience, that there was something going on here that was entirely new. Instead, you dragged out the same old playbook -- compromise, compromise, send money, compromise -- even though a blind man could see that it was a recipe for more defeat.

The paradigm has shifted, Alan, and I had hoped someone as bright as you might have noticed it. This struggle is no longer something you can control. It is beyond compromise. For indeed, as I have written elsewhere, there is no compromise on background checks that we cannot wreck with armed civil disobedience.

The longer you pursue that course, the longer you make more and more enemies of principled people whom you ought to be working with, the greater the chances that the Law of Unintended Consequences is going to bite you and your fundraising operation in the ass. For example, after the latest revelations about your chosen Mini-Me, Adina Hicks, how long will it be before the anti-gun press begin to dig into the same manure pile, only with bigger and more lurid headlines? The more you attack people who ought to be your allies both in public and behind the scenes the more they will consider you to be as much their enemy as Michael Bloomberg. They may not have a lot of money, but they are not without resources and they have determination to burn.

To quote Officer Judy from The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour back in 1968: "People who live in grass houses shouldn't throw lawnmowers." This situation is not irretrievable yet, just critically close to being so. You can still back up out of your comfort zone and do a little out-of-the-box thinking. You are capable of it. The only question is can you swallow your ego long enough to do it.

Again, there is no compromise with such an unconstitutional infringement as I-594. It must and will be defeated. The only question is whether or not your reputation as a "defender of gun rights" will survive the battle.

Until December 18, 2014, Adina Hicks was legally Adina Atwood (although she did use both names for a short period last year before her name change was finalized). She graduated from law school and was a licensed attorney until September of 2004, when she was disbarred for a host of offenses, including defrauding her clients and worse (The IRS listed her on “indefinite suspension” as of February 2005) . . .

Atwood/Hicks later went on to host a radio show, work for the NRA-ILA as a field rep, and become politically involved in the 2A fight. When I-594 was revealed, Atwood/Hicks jumped on the bandwagon. Interestingly enough, the announcement of her promotion to Executive Director of POGR listed her law degree from Seattle University School of Law…but forgot to mention that she was disbarred. They did, however, remember to include a plea for donations. . .

This is significant because it also happens to be the address of Second Amendment Foundation, owned and operated by Alan Gottlieb. In fact, research showed that several of the gun rights groups in WA are also in that same building. Interestingly enough, POGR is NOT listed as being there…and neither is WAFLAG—even though all donations for both go to the Bellevue address. In several locations on Facebook, commenters claiming to be close to Atwood/Hicks told people that they should contact her directly by calling Second Amendment Foundation and asking for her. Are POGR and WAFLAG even real groups? Or are they simply fronts for SAF? WAFLAG is not listed as registered with the State of Washington, according to the Secretary of State’s website. Granted, it’s a “coalition” of existing groups, but then where are its donations going? Are they split equally among the groups claiming to be part of WAFLAG? Or are they going to SAF? Well, according to the Secretary of State, POGR may be run by Adina Atwood Hicks. . . but its registered agent is Alan Gottlieb. Guess that answers that question.

The latest news, of course, is that Adina Hicks is now threatening to sue activists Anthony Bosworth, Kit Lange, et. al., for having the temerity to investigate and publicize her sordid past and questionable links to Gottlieb. I guess she'll have to hire a lawyer to do that, being disbarred and all. I hope she sues me, too. I guarantee that whoever she sues will have a whole lot more fun in the discovery process than either she or Alan Gottlieb will. It's under oath, you know. You might want to get a hold of your Mini-Me, Alan, before she goes and upsets all your apple carts.

"Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress."

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H.L. Mencken

On the efficacy of passive resistance in the face of the collectivist beast. . .

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

In the future . . .

When the histories are written, “National Rifle Association” will be cross-referenced with “Judenrat.” -- Mike Vanderboegh to Sebastian at "Snowflakes in Hell"

"Smash the bloody mirror."

If you find yourself through the looking glass, where the verities of the world you knew and loved no longer apply, there is only one thing to do. Knock the Red Queen on her ass, turn around, and smash the bloody mirror. -- Mike Vanderboegh

From Kurt Hoffman over at Armed and Safe.

"I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."

From long experience myself, I can only say, "You betcha."

"Only cowards dare cringe."

The fears of man are many. He fears the shadow of death and the closed doors of the future. He is afraid for his friends and for his sons and of the specter of tomorrow. All his life's journey he walks in the lonely corridors of his controlled fears, if he is a man. For only fools will strut, and only cowards dare cringe. -- James Warner Bellah, "Spanish Man's Grave" in Reveille, Curtis Publishing, 1947.

"We fight an enemy that never sleeps."

"As our enemies work bit by bit to deconstruct, we must work bit by bit to REconstruct. Be mindful where we should be. Set goals. We fight an enemy that never sleeps. We must learn to sleep less." -- Mike H. at What McAuliffe Said

"The Fate of Unborn Millions. . ."

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington to his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

"We will not go gently . . ."

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, The Lessons of Mumbai:Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit, 1 December 2008

"A common language of resistance . . ."

"Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many Americans colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774." -- T.H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.